DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1, 11, 20-24, 26-33, and 35-38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hong in Foreign Application EP 3910993 A1 (cited by the applicant), hereinafter referred to as Hong, in view of Sedin et al. in Foreign Application WO 2020/148582 A1 (cited by the applicant), hereinafter referred to as Sedin.
Regarding claim 1, Hong teaches a method performed by a wireless device, the method comprising (in general, see fig. 13-14 and their corresponding paragraphs):
determining whether one or more conditions for triggering reporting of measurements have occurred (Hong, see at least para. 116 and fig. 13, "...The UE may perform a step of determining whether to perform the cell measurement or the cell measurement report using the configuration information at S1320...");
performing one or more measurements (Hong, see at least para. 120 and fig. 13, “...The UE may perform a step of controlling the cell measurement or the cell measurement report operation according to the determination result at S1330...”);
and
transmitting a measurement report based on the one or more measurements (Hong, see fig. 14 in view of fig. 13, in particular, see claim 6 in view of claim 1, a base station is “...receiving the cell measurement report operation according to the determination result in which the UE determines whether to perform the cell measurement or the cell measurement report by using the configuration information...”)
wherein, the measurement report is transmitted upon the occurrence of the one or more conditions, wherein the one or more conditions for triggering the reporting of the measurements is based on a distance between the wireless device and a reference point, the reference point corresponding to a center of a moving cell (Hong, see at least para. 167-168 along with para. 116, for one non-limiting example, “...The UE may know whether the UE has entered a section requiring the cell measurement based on the TA value calculated based on the satellite orbit information and the location information of the UE...”, note that “...When the UE is in the center of the satellite beam, the TA has the smallest value, and when the UE is in the edge of the satellite beam, the TA has the largest value...”).
Hong does not specifically teach the center of the moving cell determined based on a nadir of the satellite node serving the moving cell.
Sedin teaches the center of the moving cell determined based on a nadir of the satellite node serving the moving cell (Sedin, see at least page 14-15 disclosing Embodiment 7 along with its fig. 5A-B, note that nadir is the foot point, which is the center point of moving satellite serving the measuring UE).
Therefore, it would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to a person having ordinary skill in the art to incorporate Sedin into Hong to provide required measurement parameters to further enhance the system compatibility and performance.
Regarding claim 11, this claim is rejected for the same reasoning as claim 1. To be more specific, although reciting subject matters slightly different, one skilled in the art would have known claim 11 performs reverse (or corresponding) procedures of claim 1. For example, it would be a network node of claim 11 that performs the reverse (or corresponding) receiving from and transmitting to the wireless device of claim 1. Hence, the examiner applies the same rejection reasoning as set forth in claim 1.
Regarding claim 20, this claim is rejected for the same reasoning as claim 1 except this claim is in apparatus claim format.
Regarding claim 21, Hong in view of Sedin teaches claim 20.
Hong further teaches determine whether to trigger measurement reporting to the network node based on whether the one or more measurements satisfy one or more reporting conditions. (Hong, see at least para. 113, "...According to another embodiment, the configuration information may include at least one of a measurement report trigger condition, a measurement report period, a timer value, a threshold value, and a measurement report location for the UE to perform a measurement operation on the cell and report it to the base station...")
Regarding claim 22, Hong in view of Sedin teaches claim 20.
Hong further teaches send a measurement report to the network node. (Hong, see at least para. 129 and Figure 14, "...The base station may perform the step of receiving the cell measurement report according to the result of determining whether the UE performs the cell measurement or the cell measurement report using the configuration information at S1420...", implies the cell measurement report is sent by the UE)
Regarding claim 23, Hong in view of Sedin teaches claim 20.
Hong further teaches performing the one or more measurements is based at least in part on a measurement configuration received from the network node. (Hong, see at least para. 120 and Figure 13, "...The UE may perform a step of controlling the cell measurement or the cell measurement report operation according to the determination result at S1330...").
Regarding claim 24, Hong in view of Sedin teaches claim 20.
Hong further teaches at least one of the measurements indicates a channel quality associated with a source cell or a candidate target cell, wherein the one or more measurements indicating a channel quality comprises a Reference Signal Received Power, Reference Signal Received Quality, Signal to Interference Noise Ratio, or Reference Signal Strength Indicator measurement. (Hong, see at least 166, "...the base station may configure a measurement (e.g. RSRP) threshold for the corresponding satellite beam in the UE...")
Regarding claim 26, Hong in view of Sedin teaches claim 20.
Hong further teaches at least one of the measurements indicates a location of the wireless device. (Hong, see at least 164, "...if the UE has the capability to calculate/determine a location (e.g. using GNSS), the UE may calculate which location/location area/zone/reference switch area is included in the corresponding location...")
Regarding claim 27, Hong in view of Sedin teaches claim 20.
Hong further teaches at least one of the measurements indicates a distance or differential delay between the wireless device and a reference point (Hong, see at least para. 167-168 along with para. 116, for one non-limiting example, “...The UE may know whether the UE has entered a section requiring the cell measurement based on the TA value calculated based on the satellite orbit information and the location information of the UE...”, note that “...When the UE is in the center of the satellite beam, the TA has the smallest value, and when the UE is in the edge of the satellite beam, the TA has the largest value...”).
Hong does not specifically teach the reference point corresponding to a nadir of the satellite node serving the source cell and/or a candidate target cell.
Sedin teaches the reference point corresponding to a nadir of the satellite node serving the source cell and/or a candidate target cell (Sedin, see at least page 14-15 disclosing Embodiment 7 along with its fig. 5A-B, note that nadir is the foot point, which is the center point of moving satellite serving the measuring UE).
Therefore, it would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to a person having ordinary skill in the art to incorporate Sedin into Hong to provide required measurement parameters to further enhance the system compatibility and performance.
Regarding claim 28, Hong in view of Sedin teaches claim 27.
Hong further teaches receive, from the network node, information indicating the reference point via common or dedicated signaling. (Hong, see at least para. 167-168 along with at least para. 147, for one non-limiting example, note that “...Alternatively, the UE may derive the location information of the base station from any orbit information indicated by the base station through the system information...”)
Regarding claim 29, Hong in view of Sedin teaches claim 20.
Hong further teaches at least one of the measurements indicates a derivative of a distance or differential delay. (Hong, see at least para. 148, for one non-limiting example, “...The base station may request and receive the current location information of the UE from the UE, and estimate the location of the UE based on the information received from the UE. The base station may request and receive assistance information for estimating the location of the UE from the UE. For example, information useful for estimating the location of the UE, such as the speed, the moving direction, the moving route, the destination, and the arrival time of the destination, may be obtained from the UE...”)
Regarding claim 30, this claim is rejected for substantially identical reason as claim 11, except the claim is in an apparatus claim format (i.e. a network node).
Regarding claim 31, this claim is rejected for substantially same reason as claim 23, except the process is performed at the network node end instead of at the wireless device end.
Regarding claim 32, Hong in view of Sedin teaches claim 30.
Hong further teaches the one or more conditions indicate when the wireless device should activate the measurement configuration. (Hong, see at least para. 151, “...When the UE is in the center portions 1610, 1620, and 1630, the UE may not perform the satellite/satellite beam/cell change within a short time. Therefore, it may skip the cell measurement. On the other hand, if the UE is out of the center of each satellite beam/cell coverage, for example, out of the small circles 1610, 1620, and 1630 indicated by dotted lines, the UE may be configured to perform measurement...").
Regarding claims 33, 35, 36, 37, and 38, these claims are rejected for substantially same reasons as claims 24, 26, 27, 28, and 29, except each process is performed at the network node end instead of at the wireless device end.
Claims 25 and 34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hong in view of Sedin, and further in view of Wirola et al. (US 2012/0139790, hereinafter Wirola).
Regarding claim 25,
Hong in view of Sedin teaches claim 20.
Hong in view of Sedin does not specifically teach at least one measurement indicates a pathloss associated with a source cell.
Wirola teaches at least one measurement indicates a pathloss associated with a source cell. (Wirola, see at least para. 18, “...The terminal positions may for instance be reported by the one or more terminals together with an identification of the communication node and optionally further parameters, for instance a timestamp, a Received Signal Strength (RSS), path loss, a range indication with respect to the communication node (for instance based on a Timing Advance (TA) or Round Trip Delay (RTD)), to name but a few examples...”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to a person having ordinary skill in the art to incorporate Wirola into Hong in view of Sedin to allow effective measurements from terminals within coverage area.
Regarding claim 34, this claim is rejected for substantially identical reason as claim 25, except the claim is in an apparatus claim format (i.e. a network node).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 06/29/2026 have been fully considered. Regarding independent claims 1, 11, 20, and 30, since applicant's amendment necessitated new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action, previous Office action's rejections are moot. Accordingly, corresponding dependent claims have also been rejected in this Office action.
Applicant's arguments filed 06/29/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Examiner provides response in following sections.
Regarding independent claim 1, applicant argues that:
“The Office Action contends that Hong teaches triggering measurement reporting based on a distance between the wireless device and a reference point corresponding to a center of a moving cell. Office Action, page 4. However, Hong does not disclose that the UE determines the distance between itself a center of the cell. In particular, Hong discloses how "[t]he UE may acquire the TA" in which "[t]he UE may refine the TA by using the location of the UE and the orbit information of the satellite based on the TA received by the base station." Hong, paragraph [0168]. Using the refined TA "[t]he UE may know whether the UE has entered a section requiring the cell measurement based on the TA value calculated based on the satellite orbit information and the location information of the UE and the TA threshold value indicated by the base station." Hong, paragraph [0168]. As discussed in more detail below, determining a TA value does not necessarily mean the UE has determined the distance between itself and the center of a cell.
Hong discloses that the TA value is the round trip time it takes for a signal to go from the UE to the satellite and then back to the UE. See Hong, paragraph [0167]. This means that what the UE is calculating, at least indirectly, is how far the UE is from the satellite. It does not tell the UE how far it is from the center of a cell. For example, if the UE increases or decreases its elevation, the TA would change even though the UE's distance from the center of the cell hasn't changed. As another example, if the center of the cell supported by the satellite is located to the side of the satellite (e.g., the satellite is projecting the cell at an angle away from itself, as opposed to straight down) then the TA would increase as the UE moved from the edge nearest the satellite. The Applicant acknowledges that Hong discloses a specific scenario in which "[w]hen the UE is in the center of the satellite beam, the TA has the smallest value, and when the UE is in the edge of the satellite beam, the TA has the largest value." Hong, paragraph [0167]. However, Hong does not disclose that it is the distance from the center of the beam that triggers the measurement report, but rather "the TA threshold value indicated by the base station." Hong, paragraph [0168].” Remarks, page 8-9)
Examiner respectfully disagrees. To be more specific, claim 1 recites, amongst other things, determining when one or more conditions has occurred, performing a measurement and transmitting a report. These one or more conditions, when broadly reasonably interpreted, are: (i) a distance between the wireless device and a reference point, (ii) the reference point corresponding to a center of a moving cell, (or iii) the center of the moving cell determined based on a nadir of the satellite node serving the moving cell. In Hong, the UE knows its location based on the TA (cell center or cell edge, see para. 167). When the UE knows the location of the UE, the distance between the UE and the satellite may be calculated from the location of the UE and the location of the satellite (see para. 168). Hence, the UE is indeed able to determine at least one or more conditions being occurred, e.g. (i) a distance between the wireless device and a reference point, (ii) the reference point corresponding to a center of a moving cell. Hong does not disclose the center of the moving cell determined based on a nadir of the satellite node serving the moving cell. However, Sedin cures that. Therefore, Hong alone, or combined with Sedin indeed teaches or suggests the features of “...wherein the one or more conditions for triggering the reporting of the measurements is based on a distance between the wireless device and a reference point, the reference point corresponding to a center of a moving cell, the center of the moving cell determined based on a nadir of the satellite node serving the moving cell”, as recited in claim 1.
Further, applicant argues that:
“The Office Action has also cited Sedin to show "the center of the moving cell determined based on a nadir of the satellite node serving the moving cell." Office Action, page 4. However, this does not cure the defect in Hong. Even if it is assumed that Sedin discloses determining the center of moving cell based on a nadir of the satellite, the combination still fails to disclose, teach, or suggest the claimed invention. In particular, the combination fails to disclose, teach, or suggest transmitting a measurement report based on "a distance between the wireless device and a reference point, the reference point corresponding to a center of a moving cell." Put another way, the claims are directed to a specific relationship in which the nadir of the satellite is used to determine the center of the cell provided by the satellite, the center is used as the reference point from which the wireless device determines its distance therefrom. Based on this distance, the measurement report is transmitted. The combination fails to disclose this.” Remarks, page 9)
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Page 4 of the Office action clearly indicates that, in part, Hong’s claim 6 in view of claim 1 teach or suggest the argued features. In particular, Hong’s claim 1 (see also para. 113 of fig. 13 step 1310) discloses a UE receives configuration information for controlling a cell measurement. Hong’s claim 6 (see also para. 129 of fig. 14 step 1420) discloses a network entity receives cell measurement report according to the determination result in which the UE determines whether to perform the cell measurement using the configuration information. Further, Hong in at least para. 113 disclose that the configuration information comprises, in part, a measurement location for the UE to determine whether to perform measurements. Hence, Hong-Sedin indeed discloses the are argued features above. Therefore, Hong-Sedin indeed teaches or suggests the features of “...wherein the one or more conditions for triggering the reporting of the measurements is based on a distance between the wireless device and a reference point, the reference point corresponding to a center of a moving cell, the center of the moving cell determined based on a nadir of the satellite node serving the moving cell”, as recited in claim 1.
Regarding independent claims 11, 20, and 30, the traversal grounds are same or similar as those presented in claim 1 above. Therefore, in view of the response above, examiner also respectfully disagrees and has maintained the rejection as presented.
Accordingly, all pending dependent claims of the independent claims 1, 11, 20, and 30, in view of the response above, the examiner has maintained the rejection as presented and believes all rejections are proper and should be sustained.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to YEE F LAM whose telephone number is (571)270-7577. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-5pm. Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Ayman Abaza can be reached on 571-270-0422. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/YEE F LAM/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2465
Prosecution Insights